Tom C, on 22 October 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:
Interesting that you are running COR wheels in your sig.....

What I find even more interesting is that it looks like all the evidence is in COR's possession..... so even if COR comes up with some sort of metallurgical "proof" that some caustic paint stripper was used, they will have a hard time regaining their credibility given that could have tampered with the wheels at this point. Letting something like this get out publicly by denying a warranty claim is just plain bad business....

Me running COR wheels has nothing to do with my response. I've made a living doing metallurgical engineering, including failure analysis, and I understand what effects processing can have on material properties. It appears that you believe that it would be better for them to pay for damages regardless of the root cause of this failure. As far as tampering with the evidence, no self respecting metallurgist is going to stake their reputation on one investigation by hiding/altering the results. I can tell you many companies would take the same approach as COR on this. You're entitled to your opinion, but I know that I would have recommended doing a metallurgical investigation before officially responding to the claim. I, in no way, represent COR, but I have experience as an expert witness with respect to metallurgical matters. I could have not responded to this thread, but I felt it was in the best interest of those reading that there certainly is a potential for damaging aluminum wheels by incorrectly stripping finishes.

About the wheels: My father had purchased these wheels brand new from Peter at ACG back in March of 2011-- Cor Precise in 20”x9.5 in the front and 20”x10.5” in the rear with a brushed center and polished lips. A week before the event at Auto Club Speedway, I had the center of the wheels painted gold. They were not powder coated, nor were they disassembled. They were professionally prepared and painted by a well known shop that does wheel repair work and prepares race cars.

We would like to clarify that the revisions made to our warranty were a direct result of the client’s attorney’s assertion that our terminology was vague. This does not speak of the safety and appropriateness of the product, which we feel is 100-percent safe for use on or off the track, but rather to the applicability of our warranty.

Posted <abbr class="published" title="2012-10-25T06:58:02+00:00">Today, 12:58 AM</abbr>




My intentions were and still are just to share my experience with this situation. However, with the release of COR’s latest public statement, I am compelled to respond. In addition to not accepting any responsibility, the notion that COR somehow feels victimized and unfairly treated by its customer is unacceptable. It is clear that their press release is primarily for damage control. Here are my responses to some of the “facts” made in their press release.

1. “The client elected to bypass our resolution process by communicating with us through third parties (specifically an attorney).”

It should not make a difference whether the communication was through the customer or the customer’s representative. The outcome should have been no different. Secondly, there was no “resolution process.” The fact is COR was shipped the wheels via Peter at ACG, and then they denied the warranty.

As previously mentioned in my initial post, Peter from ACG reached out to me the very next day following the HDPE, which we really appreciated. Peter mentioned that he had already spoken with COR. Please note, this was before we took any action. Based upon a few more conversations my father had with Peter, he [Peter] gave us the indication (from conversations he had with COR), that the warranty would not be honored. As a result, my father told Peter that his attorney would take over from there. 1 month after the wheel failure and with no word from COR, my father’s attorney sent them a letter. The letter itemized the damages, requested to be reimbursed, and asked…”How you wish to proceed…”

2. “We sincerely hope that those following this series of events can appreciate that we had no other option than to turn this matter over to a product liability carrier.”

Although we appreciate that COR submitted our warranty claim to their liability carrier, the mention of having “no other option” is another form of damage control. COR could have handled the warranty claim swiftly and easily, but elected not to. In fact, it was just this past week that COR’s liability carrier contacted our attorney, 5 months after the incident.

3. “The claim for warranty denied on the published letter was a response to the client’s attorney’s demand letter, and not COR Wheels refusing to stand behind its product.”

Refusing to stand behind their product is simply what COR had done. There is nothing more to it than that. Please re-read COR’s denial of warranty posted in my original post…”the product was clearly not being used in the manner for which it was intended”…“On this basis, we would have to deny the claim for warranty consideration.”

4.“Prior to the involvement of legal counsel, the client was offered a full refund, regardless of any specific warranty considerations.”

This is an untrue statement and it exposes COR’s true character. COR has never offered us a refund of any kind. COR also does not specify after this statement, if the offer was either accepted or denied. This shows that the statement is false. I invite COR to promptly post verifiable, dated documentation of the alleged offer made to us, as this would be our first time reviewing it as well.

5. “We would like to clarify that the revisions made to our warranty are a direct result of the client’s attorney’s assertion that our terminology was vague.”

Here, COR is stating that the only reason for their change in warranty on their website was solely based on our attorney’s terminology. This doesn’t change the fact that when the wheel broke, COR’s warranty was different than the “updated” one. I do want to point out that COR points blame to our attorney multiple times in their release as an excuse for their actions.

6. “This does not speak of the safety and appropriateness of the product, which we feel 100-percent for use on and off the track…”

I am confused. If you have 100% confidence in your product, then there should be no reason to deny warranty.

More than once, we have asked for the return of our wheels to consider performing our own 3<sup class="bbc">rd</sup> party analysis to learn more about what really happened. After four months of having our wheels, COR has not responded to this request, or provided any response period. I publicly ask COR to return our wheels, along with the verifiable, dated documentation of the said refund that we were offered.

To all those who have questioned whether the wheels were powder coated, disassembled or improperly painted. As COR knows by now through their examination of the wheels, the wheels were not powder coated, were not disassembled, but professionally taped, primed and painted using quality automotive paint. By the way the shop was flattered to hear that everyone thought that the wheels were disassembled prior to painting.

In closing, you can all come up with your own conclusions on how COR has handled this situation from day one. My intent is to only state the facts and to inform fellow car enthusiasts of potential concerns through my experience.